If you have a home robber at your mercy, should it be a crime to execute him?

[Pony Soldier]

Yes. If you have him subdued and the threat is neutralized you've done your part, now let the authorities handle the rest. It's not up to you whether he dies or not. You've successfully defended your home and that's all that matters. Let him rot in a jail cell. I'd say it's a lot more satisfying knowing you thwarted off this piece of shit and handed him over to the police. Then you can be like "Hey, got a present for ya!" when the cops show up. Then you can all laugh at the shithead while he sits in the back of the cop car.

However I'd say it'd be a different story if he broke in to your home armed with a gun. Then you have every right to do what you got to do to defend yourself and if you have a family them to. If he dies then he dies.

[Kaganfindel]

Burglaries and armed robberies aren't punishable by death. Seek help.

[-aiko-]

The fact that anyone has to even question this makes me very sad.

[Kathandira]

last time i checked a loved one wouldnt be breaking into my home

Funny story. My step dad was an alcoholic. When he and my mother got into an argument, he would leave and go to the bar all night. She would lock him out of the house and go to bed (don't ask why he didn't have the key, I don't know, I was young.) Often in the middle of the night, I would be woken up to my step father crawling into my second floor bedroom window. The dude was like freakin spider man when he drunk.

Very often we had to break into our own house, lol.

[Revik]

Perhaps a different set of circumstances will make it clear how wrong that is.

Suppose an attractive female robber came in and you were able to subdue her where she posed no threat any longer. You have her tied up and then you proceed to rape the living shit out of her. Let's just say that you decide to not tell the cops and keep her prisoner in your basement for gods knows when so you can continue to rape her again and again. Now tell me if you think that is a crime or not.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Depends on the situation. Killing always does. That's why some killing isn't labeled murder. No one should ever be obligated to cater to the well-being of someone who poses a threat.

Someone who is at your mercy no longer poses a threat. To execute someone in that situation is murder.

[Cruor]

They broke into your home with the intent to do harm. At a minimum steal and at most rape kill and torture. It's not only Ok, but the right choice to kill them. Why let them go to do it to someone else, or jump you as soon as you are distracted?

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps a different set of circumstances will make it clear how wrong that is.

Suppose an attractive female robber came in and you were able to subdue her where she posed no threat any longer. You have her tied up and then you proceed to rape the living shit out of her. Let's just say that you decide to not tell the cops and keep her prisoner in your basement for gods knows when so you can continue to rape her again and again. Now tell me if you think that is a crime or not.

Maybe she should have worried about that before breaking into somones home? Reap what you sow. She was evil and found a greater evil.

[Phookah]

Obviously, but then again I'm not mentally ill.

[Jonnusthegreat]

They broke into your home with the intent to do harm. At a minimum steal and at most rape kill and torture. It's not only Ok, but the right choice to kill them. Why let them go to do it to someone else, or jump you as soon as you are distracted?

I only wish more people thought like you.

[Cruor]

If they are criminals they deserve death. Don't break into homes and don't die, how hard is that? Thankfully most places in the USA allow us to kill home invaders. You can go ahead and let them have all your stuff and a hug on the way out. I'll kill them, thanks.

[Roxinius]

If they are criminals they deserve death. Don't break into homes and don't die, how hard is that? Thankfully most places in the USA allow us to kill home invaders. You can go ahead and let them have all your stuff and a hug on the way out. I'll kill them, thanks.

the difference is if you have them subdued there is no longer a threat and that is murder the castle doctrine will not protect you in that case

[Phookah]

If they are criminals they deserve death. Don't break into homes and don't die, how hard is that? Thankfully most places in the USA allow us to kill home invaders. You can go ahead and let them have all your stuff and a hug on the way out. I'll kill them, thanks.

Shooting an intruder =/= tying them up and shooting them in the head

that's called a war crime junior

[Revik]

They broke into your home with the intent to do harm. At a minimum steal and at most rape kill and torture. It's not only Ok, but the right choice to kill them. Why let them go to do it to someone else, or jump you as soon as you are distracted?

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe she should have worried about that before breaking into somones home? Reap what you sow. She was evil and found a greater evil.

This isn't the wild west or some nightmare post apocalyptic scenario. Most people who come in to steal are doing it to get by and not because they have some perverse thrill from doing it. There are certainly filth that are better off dead in this world but death is NOT a Just punishment for theft. Other things I'm with you, sure. You also presume rape, kill and torture but none of that was done yet so you cannot assume that after the perpetrator has already been subdued.

[Roxinius]

This isn't the wild west or some nightmare post apocalyptic scenario. Most people who come in to steal are doing it to get by and not because they have some perverse thrill from doing it. There are certainly filth that are better off dead in this world but death is NOT a Just punishment for theft. Other things I'm with you, sure. You also presume rape, kill and torture but none of that was done yet so you cannot assume that after the perpetrator has already been subdued.

someone breaks into my house while im there im not going to guess why they are there most of the time having a gun pointed at you is enough to stop them and subdue them but if they dont stop then you can bet your ass im going to aim center mass and fire

[Alfador]

Assuming you haven't killed them on the spot and force them to relinquish their weapons and get on their knees, should it REALLY be considered a crime to kill them in these instances?

If you were in actual war, where you know for a verified fact that the other person was trying to kill them, what you are proposing here would literally be a war crime. If a soldier in Iraq or Afganistan did that to a member of Al Qaeda, someone who specifically would kill them given the opportunity, it would be a war crime. I am all for lethal defense but once you literally have someone at your mercy, there is no reason or excuse.

[Delana]

Yes, of course.
You don't shoot an unarmed person.
This would be a crime even in war, of course it's a crime when it's a simply thief.

You won, it's over.

So if some asshole brakes into my house, I have to verify he is armed before defending myself?

Seems like a lot of bother and risk for an event I didn't want anything to do with. Ultimately, the thief puts themselves in this position. Not the resident.

[cubby]

Basically, someone or few people armed with any weapons invade your home at midnight, and you whip out a shotgun to get the jump on them. Assuming you haven't killed them on the spot and force them to relinquish their weapons and get on their knees, should it REALLY be considered a crime to kill them in these instances?

I've read on stories where these scenarios did happen (the execute part) and, while the person that killed his assailants don't really ever get crazy punishments, they still go to jail for a time. Like, why?

In that exact instance, yes, it should be a crime because it moves from "kill" to "execute", and in the eyes of the law, those words have significantly different meanings. HOWEVER, I would also argue that killing someone should garner a wide latitude within the law when someone invades your home. I realize these two statements may seem contradictory, but I'm comfortable with the dichotomy.

[Roxinius]

So if some asshole brakes into my house, I have to verify he is armed before defending myself?

Seems like a lot of bother and risk for an event I didn't want anything to do with. Ultimately, the thief puts themselves in this position. Not the resident.

im thinking they mean if you have disarmed them

[cubby]

Yes, of course.
You don't shoot an unarmed person.
This would be a crime even in war, of course it's a crime when it's a simply thief.

You won, it's over.

Negative Ghostrider - that is incorrect. Killing unarmed soldiers in a war is NOT illegal.

As would shooing an unarmed person - the circumstances dictate the rules, and in this case, most states allow armed response to invaders of homes, regardless of the invaders status. So killing someone who is unarmed would be justified. Executing them would not. I.e., tied up and ready for the police to arrive - that would be a no-no.

[Orange Joe]

last time i checked a loved one wouldnt be breaking into my home

Never snuck out as a kid? Came home after midnight?


Not like we don't have a few instances of this already happening in america.